No Western Govt Has Ever Claimed The power To Do This! The King Of England! Not Hitler! Not Stalin!

page: 14
252
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by SFGirl
They are covered by the Geneva Convention and by the very fact that they are not UNIFORMED Combatants they have none of the protections of the Geneva Convention.
This is simply not true and, if you truly are a “retired veteran,” it’s even more worrying how ignorant you are of the Conventions, which are at the core of the laws of war.

If a detained person qualifies as a POW he is protected under the Third Geneva Convention, but if he does not qualify as a POW he is covered by the Fourth Geneva Convention, and is afforded the minimum protections of the Conventions, as specified in Common Article 3.


Originally posted by SFGirl
because it is perfectly legal under the Geneva Convention to execute them on sight.
This is completely untrue and easily demonstrable as such.

Common Article 3 states that “... the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples” “are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever” in respect to “persons taking no active part in the hostilities,” like “those placed hors de combat by ... detention, or any other cause”.

I await your citations of the Geneva Conventions that allow “executions on sight” as you claim they do.



Originally posted by OldCorp
Another thing that makes them UNLAWFUL enemy combatants is the fact that most of them aren't even from Afghanistan.
Nonsense. Being a national is not a requirement for being a privileged combatant. Foreign volunteers are permissible under the laws of war.

You two make these absolute statements, and while you might fool some uninformed people by hiding your extreme views behind vague references to the Conventions, it’s quite obvious you have little or no knowledge of the laws of armed conflict.


BRILLIANT POST !!!!!
THANK YOU VERY MUCH !




posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 
Let's be honest here we all know where all those letters and petitions end up:




edit on 053131p://2226 by mike dangerously because: fixed spelling.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   
From this thread - ATS Thread - war crimes

The debate in that thread is the exact same debate in this thread, so instead of going line by line im just going to reference the facts of my posts which were ignroed by Aptnes because it underminds his argument in this area.

The Taliban is not the recognized Government of Afghanistan by the UN. The "recognized" government of Afghanistan occured in 1953, which was the last time they had an officaly recognized government, and again in 2005 when they held elections and took their UN seat back and were officaly recognized.

Our "war" is not against the offical governmentment of Aghanistan, but with the Taliban / Al Queida, who are NOT signatories to any UN treaty.


Originally posted by aptness
And as I’ve previously pointed out (post) the Supreme Court, in Hamdan, ruled that, at least, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to the detainees of the “war on terror”—

The D. C. Circuit ruled Common Article 3 inapplicable to Hamdan because the conflict with al Qaeda is international in scope and thus not a “conflict not of an international character.” That reasoning is erroneous. (...)


The substance of Hamden Vs. Rumsfeld had to do with Congressional legislation that was requested by the adminiatration to remove the US Supreme Court from having an authority over combatents captured on the BattleField, restricting them solely to Military TRibunals. As you correctly point out, the Supreme Court ruled that the UCMJ has the Genevea Conventions built into it, and that any attempt to remove the Supreme Court from the military tribunal process was illegal and not supported by any laws.

The Supreme Court ruled in the end that they, The USSC, did have jurisdiction over captured combatents and that the administration lacked authority to establish any type of military tribunal without the express authorization under law by the US Congress, because any attempt to do so violates the UCMJ.

Result -
The Courts decision did not prohibit the use of military tribuanls for captured combatants provided it is done within the confines of the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions because they provided more protections that the military tribunals the Bush Administration wanted.

What you are leaving out of the Hamden Vs. Rumsfeld court case is its continuation. The Military Commision Act of 2006 was authorized by Congress and signed into law by Bush after the Supreme Court RUling on Hamden. The congressional authorization corrected the misteps the court cited as grounds to reverse the DC Circuit court ruling.

The Military Commisiuon Act of 2009 expanded more rights to captured enemy combatents and was signed into law, and USA vs. Al Qosi was the first detainee to have the amendement applied to their court action.

Respectuflly I have no issues witt you invoking Supreme Court cases to support your argument. However if you are going to do so you need to research the extension of the court cases you cite. In this case you keep coming back to Hamden, yet ignore the resulting legislation that corrected the ruling and established new guildlines that are now legal.


Originally posted by aptness
So what Xcathdra here says about torture and executions, when applied to the detainees of the “war on terror,” is simply unsupported by the facts.


1st Geneva Convention
2nd Geneva Convention
3rd Geneva Convention4th Geneva Convention

Protocol 1
Protocol 2
Protocol 3

Specifically the 3rd Geneva Convention establishes the treatment of person captured during armed conflict, and also specifically details in article 4 what exactly constitutes a Prisoner of War status.


4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.

Article 5 specifies that prisoners of war (as defined in article 4) are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation. It also specifies that when there is any doubt whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.


Again we seem to be ignoring Part II and Part III of the 3rd conventions, which cover transfer of prisoners and captivity of prisoners.

The other part you seem to forget, or ignore, is what an Unlawful Combatent is under the UN.

You must take all of this into account. Your continual targeting of the 3rd Geneva Conventions in your argument is only partially valid, because you ignore the fact that ALL of the Geneva Conventins are just part of International Humanitarian Laws (Rules of War / Laws of Armed Conflict / Laws and Customs of War).

The basic prinicple for the Rules of War is

The law is mandatory for nations bound by the appropriate treaties.


You are ignoring the rest of it which says:


There are also other customary unwritten rules of war, many of which were explored at the Nuremberg War Trials. By extension, they also define both the permissive rights of these powers as well as prohibitions on their conduct when dealing with irregular forces and non-signatories.

Under the International Humanitarian Laws (Codification), which encompass all 4 Geneva Conentions, all 3 subsequent protocols of the conventions, the Hague Convention, The Lieber Code, The ICRC, Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field and the Principle of Humanity is incumbent on signatory nations, but is not intended to act as a suicide pact when engaged in warfare gainst an entity that is not a signatory to the convenentions / rules / UN treaties or actions taken by soldiers are in violation of said treaties if they are a signatory.

And again, The war in Afghanistan is against the Taliban / Alqueida, who are NOT the recognized government. They are not sigantories to any UN treaties discussed here. The Afghan Government became officaly adopted and recognized by other countries as well as the UN in 2005. We are NOT at war with the current government of Afghanistan, but against a "faction" as the UN labeled them when the coup occured by the Taliban.

The argument you are making comes from this:


Basic rules of IHL
1.Persons hors de combat and those not taking part in hostilities shall be protected and treated humanely.
2.It is forbidden to kill or injure an enemy who surrenders or who is hors de combat.
3.The wounded and sick shall be cared for and protected by the party to the conflict which has them in its power. The emblem of the "Red Cross," or of the "Red Crescent," shall be required to be respected as the sign of protection.
4.Captured combatants and civilians must be protected against acts of violence and reprisals. They shall have the right to correspond with their families and to receive relief.
5.No one shall be subjected to torture, corporal punishment or cruel or degrading treatment.
6.Parties to a conflict and members of their armed forces do not have an unlimited choice of methods and means of warfare.
7.Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants. Attacks shall be directed solely against military objectives.[22]


Portion highlighted / emphasized by me to highlight your argument. Again the portion you ignore comes after, under Violations, which says:

This first part is important

Violations and punishment during conflict, punishment for violating the laws of war may consist of a specific, deliberate and limited violation of the laws of war in reprisal.


Why? Because of this portion -

Soldiers who break specific provisions of the laws of war lose the protections and status afforded as prisoners of war but only after facing a "competent tribunal" (GC III Art 5)


The competant tribunal portion is consistent with Prisoners of War, not enemy combatants, where treaties you refer to (Genvea etc) have a completely different method for dealing with enemy combatents which places their status under the laws of the country who has them. They fall under either civilian Domestic Law, or Military Tribunal as required by UN laws.


At that point they become an unlawful combatant but they must still be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial", because they are still covered by GC IV Art 5.


Which is non specific and again defers to the country who has them in custody. Then we move on to this portion which is paramount to the argument:

Spies and terrorists are only protected by the laws of war if the power which holds them is in a state of armed conflict or war and until they are found to be an unlawful combatant.


They are already classified as terrorists as well as enemy combatants both under UN criteria and US law, both Militarily under the Military Comission Act of 2006 as well as US Domestic Law because of the Suprepe Court decisions placing the combatants under Military Law and Tribunals.

This is important because of the final section:

Depending on the circumstances, they may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution. The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope.


The IHL, which is the governing laws for war, which encompass all 4 geneva conventions as well as the 3 protocols allow for those to be tortured / executed. It does not approve u[] NOR condemn such acts.


Originally posted by aptness
Countries that have signed the UN Convention Against Torture have committed themselves not to use torture on anyone for any reason.


I agree the treaty says this. But again you are ignoring US Law dealing with Foireign Treaties (Treaty Clause in the Constitution) and the subsequent Supre Court case that ruled a Foreign treaty is not the suprepe Law of the land because it would violate the Constitution which says it is the Supreme Law of the Land. What occured in court was the acknowledgment of Foreighn Treaties under International Law, but moving their status to Body of Federal Law, which makes the treaty valid, and applies it to the US as Law. It also allows that treaty, or parts of it, the be challenged in US Federal Court, which is what occured with the Bush Administration. It also allowed limited forms of "torture" IE waterboarding and sleep deprivation, and any person who engaged in that activity has qualified immunity under Supreme Court rulings extending backwards prior to the court rulings.

My argument on this topic is puirely legal, that the actions taken were within the confines of US law, and in conjucntion with UN treaties, noting the exceptions the UN points out when dealing with entites who are NOT party to any UN treaties, also noting the exceptions when enemy actions violate those laws we are held to.

This is not a new concept and the reason for the nuremburg citation is because of Russia. Durring WWII they were not a signatory to the Genevea Conventions or any other treaty that governed the treament of captured soldiers.

This is why POW camps seperated prisoners of treaty countries away from those who were not. Russians face horrific POW conditions by the Germans, and at nuremburg this was specifically brought up as a defense to German actions towards Russians, which resulted in the non signatory exceptions which are present in todays laws.

From an ethical standpoint, which you have not asked me about, I think its crap. I think if the US is going to be "The Leader of the Free World" and a beacon for all, then we should take the higher road in terms of ethics, morals and our conduct around the world. Torture in my opinion does not work, and any info gleaned from it would be unreliable at best. I wont discount that we have obtained good info from torture however.

The question then becomes how do you combat an enemy who does not abide by any rules of warfare, from recognizable unofrms, to rank structure, to treatment of civilians, captured personnel?

They dont get a walk on their actions.

So now that we have picked apart US actions to a fault, lets pick apart the Taliban / Al Queida actions. Please justify to me why you want to hold the US responsible for our actions, while you completely and totally ignore Taliban / Alquieda actions. Explain to me why their conduct goes ignored by you and others when their actions are 10 times worse than those of the us?
edit on 13-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SFGirl
 


You think that because the Gitmo detainees are not covered by a specific convention or law it is "legal" to execute them? I think you will find that in all countries of the world this is called murder and is NOT legal.

How about this for legal: The US has its sent troops to "several" foreign and SOVERIGN countries in violation of rights of those peoples. In the case of Iraq, the US and its allies, in their campaign there, killed more than 1.5 MILLION noncombatants. The reasons they gave for initiating this travesty was provably entirely false (no WMD's). Despite admitting that they were there on false pretenses, they have not withdrawn their troops and appear to have no intention of doing so.

If you are indeed a veteran of such atrocities, you are complicit in murder.

You had better pray that kharma is not a rule of the universe.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


Care to provide your source for the 1.5 million figure?

As far as your claim about Iraq goes, Wikileaks disagrees with you -

US did find Iraq WMD



There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all.

The massive cache of almost 400,000 Iraq war documents released by the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion, Wired magazine reported.

The documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion, including remnants of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons arsenal -- most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War.

In August 2004, American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard, a blister agent, the documents revealed. The chemicals were triple-sealed and taken to a secure site.

Also in 2004, troops discovered a chemical lab in a house in Fallujah during a battle with insurgents. A chemical cache was also found in the city.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I was quoting a documentary by Australian journalist John Pilger which gave that figure.

I believe it was based upon the ORB Survey of Iraq War Casualties done from March 2003 to August 2007 and it was assumed that the figure from this survey was underreported as it was run from a company that was allied with (and likely funded by) the US forces.

The Wikileaks documents specificly state "small amounts" of chemical weapons were available in Iraq.

The US government has admitted there were no weapons of mass destruction found and I'm sure that if they did find evidence of WMD's, they would have shouted it all around the world (unless the WMD's had made in USA on the label, remember that the US supplied weapons to Hussein to help him take power in the first place).
edit on 15/3/2011 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
It’s unfortunate that other lawyers here on AboveTopSecret don’t share their thoughts on the specious arguments this particular member is and has been making concerning matters of the law, because it’s getting tiresome having wade through these confused statements over and over again.

Regarding the allegation that since the Taliban and al-Qaeda are not “recognized governments,” they don’t follow the Geneva Conventions and therefore the Conventions don’t apply in the fight against them, are completely void of any merit.

Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions — called Common Article 3 because it appears in all Geneva Conventions — establishes the minimum protections afforded to persons “in the case of armed conflict not of an international character [meaning, not between nations] occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties [signatories].”

Article 3 applies to conflict, including between non-signatories like the Taliban or al-Qaeda, when it occurs in the territory of a signatory. Afghanistan and Pakistan are signatories of the Geneva Conventions.

The Supreme Court, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (opinion), ruled exactly that. From the opinion (pp. 73-74)—

We need not decide the merits of this argument [that al-Qaeda is not a signatory] because there is at least one provision of the Geneva Conventions that applies here even if the relevant conflict is not one between signatories. Article 3, often referred to as Common Article 3 because, like Article 2, it appears in all four Geneva Conventions, provides that in a “conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum,” certain provisions protecting “[p]ersons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by ... detention.”

The fact that the Taliban or al-Qaeda are not “recognized government” forces, or signatories of the Conventions, is completely irrelevant. And that this member keeps raising this false issue illustrates his tactic of trying to confuse people.

The allegations that “unlawful combatants” aren’t protected by the Conventions, are also unfounded. Prisoners of war enjoy much greater protections, but Common Article 3 specifies the minimum protections and applies to those who do not qualify as POWs, “unlawful combatants.” From the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the controlling authority on the Geneva Conventions, commentary

But if, for some reason, prisoner of war status -- to take one example -- were denied to them, they would become protected persons under the present Convention. [4th Geneva Convention] ...

Members of resistance movements must fulfil certain stated conditions before they can be regarded as prisoners of war. If members of a resistance movement who have fallen in to enemy hands do not fulfil those conditions, they must be considered to be protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention. [4th Geneva Convention] ...

Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.

Contrary to what the torture apologists claim, Article 3, and the protections therein, apply to persons even if they don’t qualify as prisoners of war (i.e. “unlawful combatants”). And that Article imposes, among other things, a ban on torture.

Even a wikipedia article, this particular member relies heavily on, concerning the Third Geneva Convention mentions this—

Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war.


Concerning the confusing statement that “Foireign Treaties (Treaty Clause in the Constitution) and the subsequent Supre Court case that ruled a Foreign treaty is not the suprepe Law of the land because it would violate the Constitution,” while unsure of what this actually means, I will mention that, treaties which are not incompatible with the Constitution are, in fact, part of “the supreme law of the land.”

From a Senate page on treaties—

By virtue of the Constitution's supremacy clause (Article VI, clause 2) a treaty that is concluded compatibly with applicable constitutional requirements may have status as the "supreme law of the land," along with federal statutes and the Constitution itself.

It’s unclear why this point is raised, except perhaps again to confuse people with superfluous information and specious arguments, seeing as the Geneva Conventions have never been concluded to be incompatible with the US Constitution. They are, therefore, part of the “supreme law of the land, along with federal statutes and the Constitution itself.”

The Military Commissions Acts mentioned ad nauseam by this member, but even the authors of the Act — Senators McCain, Warner and Graham — in a statement at the time of the passage of the Act of 2006, recognized the following—

Congress does not intend with this legislation to prohibit the Federal courts from considering whether the obligations of the United States under any treaty have been met. To paraphrase an opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts recently, if treaties are to be given effect as Federal law under our legal system, determining their meaning as a matter of Federal law is the province and duty of the judiciary headed by the Supreme Court. So, though the President certainly has the constitutional authority to interpret our Nation’s treaty obligations, such interpretation is subject to judicial review.
The Supreme Court has, since Marbury v. Madison (1803), been the final interpreter of treaties. And in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld the Court found that Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to detainees of the “war on terror.”

The authors of the 2006 Act added—

Most importantly, the lack of judicial enforceability through a private right of action has absolutely no bearing on whether Geneva is binding on the Executive branch. Even if the Geneva Conventions are not enforceable by individuals in our Nation’s courts, the President and his subordinates are bound to comply with Geneva, a set of treaty obligations that forms part of our American jurisprudence. That is clear to us and to all who have negotiated this legislation in good faith.


Lastly, I think it’s funny that this member interjects into a conversation that didn’t concern him, regurgitates the same superficial information, list of names of international treaties, and wikipedia links he posted in a different thread, and then calls the discussion I was having with another member here “the exact same debate” of a different thread.

It’s somewhat understandable though, since he seemingly feels the need to defend the US government’s policies of torture and degrading treatment of prisoners, wherever these are mentioned.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


actually they didnt. They still maintained their was a WMD program present, and the leaked documents by wikileaks confirmed that.. I will believe the wilkileaks information, since not only are they trustworthy, they information they released is offical US documents.


Out of curisoity, where did you get executeing gitmo detainees from? Was that between you and the other poster, or are you saying we have executed detainees?
edit on 16-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


It would be because your argument ignores the key concept of how international treaties become part of the Federal body of Law, and are subject to the Constitution, which means they can be changed by Congress or the courts, which occured in this case with torture - specifically waterboarding, which moved it from torture to an ehanced interrogation technique - whether or not you agree with that ruling is pretty much irrelevant as it does not change the outcome of the ruling itself.

Quit ignoring the laws that undermine your argument. That seems to be the basis of your argument, which is fail.

Setting aside what you think we should do, which has as much of a foundation as international law at this point, and pointing out what the law currently is (see post above) will resovle your confusion as to why lawyers are not flocking to your side of this argument.

As I have said before, not only are you wong in your interpretation of "international law" as well as its "application" domestically speaking, you completely ignore the Constitution in an effort to make it subservient to international law, which will not happen anytime soon.

How can I say you are wrong with certainty?

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you
The Attorney General of the US disagrees with you
The Federal Appeals courst disagree with you


Which I think pretty much sums it up, as those entities are pretty much the ones who get to interpret our laws. If you feel you ahve been wronged by those rulings, feel free to file an amicus brief then next time one goes up the chain and speak your mind.

Contiunually citing international law while completely ignoring how its defined by domestic laws is where you argument fails. This has been pointed out, and yet you want to ignore that while trying to invoke international law over domestic.

in refernece to the ICC, which is NOT a UN entity, they violate their own citeria by invoking the international law experiment called universal jurisdiction, which to date, using your info, has been invoked a total of twice (since the other 2 uses were at the request of the non signatory nation).

If we want to accept your argument then, the US invasion of Iraq as well as Afghanistan were valid based on that concept, since complaints had been filed with both the Taliban, as well as the Iraqi government, about their treatment of people of different religions, the targeted killing of a specific subgroup, in this case the kurds in Iraq and christians in afghanistan.

We were well within our right to use that application to justfy our actions in both areas? Or are you going to make the argument that only certain countries are allowed to use Universal jurisdiction? Or is it going to be an invalid argument solely based on the fact it would justify US actions and once again undermine what you think should be the law?

Your entire argument has merit, up to the point where you make the claim International law and foreign treaties the US Government sign becomes superior to the Constitution, which it does not.

I have pointed out, numerous times now, the other European countries who also have made changes to international treaties they ahve signed onto, to bring those laws inline wiht standing Domestic law, yet again you fail to not only acknowledge it, you completely ignore it because it, once again,m undermines your own argument.

I have cited the Federal case law that established that precedence on numerous occasion, and to date you have soundly rejected those rulings in favor of pre ruling theory (see thext post after this for US law and foreign treaty status.). Your argument therefore is based on flawed logic, and uses a mindest of rejecting established domestic law in order to cede national sovereignty to an international body that is non democratic in nature, it does not allow redress of grievance by the citizens of this country, nor does it safeguard the citizens of this country, as is evident with the UN's inability to enforce their own resooutions.

If you can reconcile the glaring deficieny in your argument, by all means, come back and bring your case and we can debate it again. Until then though, the current law stands, the current case law stands, and to date, aside from international law, everything is in contradiction to your theory.


As a side note, what I really wish would occur from some of the people in these threads who are taking the US to task, is to also use some of that same zeal and annoyance to go after the other parties, like the Taliban, the North Korean governemnt, The Chinese Government, Sudan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Chile, Venezuela, Mexico, Russia...

Or is it the "cool" thing to just go after the US, because trying to go after the other on that list would be... whats the word.. hard and would require energy and thought?

By all means, lets shout at the sky because its raining.. thats always fixes things.

edit on 16-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Here is the information people want to ignore when it deals with foreign treaties and US domestic Law.

From here - ATS thread - War Crimes

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


Sorry I forgot to cite part of my reply dealing with Foreign treaties and us law.

Treaty Clause - Article 2, Section 2 - Wiki
US Constitution - Article 2, Section 2

Head Money Case - Court case that established case law dealing with foreign treaties. While the Constitution does refer to treaties being the supreme law of the land, the case law estblished treaties as part of the body of Federal law.

Foreign treaties cannot grant additional authority to the Federal Government if the Constitution does not already grant it.

Foreign treaties do not over rule the Constitution, and as a matter of fact, become subordinate to it.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   
And so we canput a the nails in the coffin for the International Criminal Court BS as well -

From this Thread - ATS Thread

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by aptness
The ICC critics and Bush doctrine supporters make the bogus claims that the ICC violates the Constitution because of “limitations of due process” protections, yet as you can see from the chart I mentioned above — but didn’t link correctly and my apologies to the interested parties — every single one of those bogus claims is debunked.


Thank you for fixing the link - It still does not answer all of the concerns above, and debunks nothing. I listed all of the anomolies in my post to you, and challeneged you to prove that those same guarantees are codified in the ICC. You not only failed to do that, but refered people back to the list, which is not an answer.

Those anomolies I pointed out are not present in the ICC, and as such violate the US Constitution.


Originally posted by aptness
While it is true there is no trial by jury in the ICC — the only divergence with the Constitution —


Which is a problem and strips a guranteed right from the poeple who are subject to the ICC. Which means their is potential for abuse based on political motivations. There is no recourse once the ICC makes a ruling. There is no body where it can be challenged, unlike the US where there are remedies for this.

The fact this item is not present in the ICC means it does NOT provide more protections than the US Constitution as is claimed, but actually reduces it. Your argument in this area is fail, and a distortion of the truth. We went from all the same protections and then some, to one minor exception.

As I pointed out above, I listed the portions that protect US citizens that are not found in the ICC. Please prove me wrong by countering that list with your cited material from the ICC documentation.

Here are a few more for you to add that the ICC ignores-
* - Executive Pardons / acts of clemency to convicted persons based on new information.
* - Executive Pardons / acts of clemency to convicted person based on changes in the law (constitutionally / case law rulings).
* - No guarantee of a retrial if new evidence arises that proves a person innosence.
* - No redress of grievances for those who are wrongly convicted
* - No mechanism in place for mistakes made by the court
* - No ability to request a re-hearing in front of the court with new evidence

I can keep going, but Ill stop here so you can provide us with ICC references to show these are present in that system.


Originally posted by aptness
the critics don’t mention the fact that US citizens, including military personnel, are already tried for crimes in countries where jury trials are not used — one of those countries being Israel, but they don’t mention this because it doesn’t support their narrative.


And supporters of the ICC like to confuse people with this line in hopes they dont see the flaw in the argument. If I travel to Israel, Russia, Germany etc and break their laws, I am subject to their criminal justice systems.

The old adage If you are going to play stickball in Brooklynn you better know the rules holds true here.

What the ICC does is makes it possible for any member country to make accusation and level charges against another country, or even private individual of that country for certain crimes. The list of crimes for the ICC is small, but the defeinitions of those crimes are so broad and lacking defintion, it can be used improperly, as we are seeing with Libya.

If an American is stupid enough to try to smuggle drugs into China and gets caught, where the penalty for that is death, then they should not have tempted fate. Which by the way murder is a violation of the ICC, so technically Chinaese Judicial persons who authorized the death sentence can also be charged under the ICC)

Military personnel are covered under whats call a status of forces agreement with other countries. These agreements allow the Military to have first try at any crimes committed by the US military using the UCMJ regardless of what country they are stationed in and regardless if they are on military bases or in local jursidictions. The Status of forces agreement also allows the military to cede jurisdiciton to the host country, to allow them first chance at charges.

All of that is codified in FEderal Law, the UCMJ, and various Status of forces agreements we have, and the ICC strips that right from the military by invoking an unlawful jurisdictional body.

Comparing local legal systems and local laws in an effort to prop up an argument for the ICC is without any type of stable foundation, because they are completely seperate topics in this regard, and Aptness, you are intelligent and you know this, so I am not sure why you are trying to use it in this debate.

But to once again make my point and drive it home about how dangerous the ICC is at this point is the crime of Murder, which is one of the crimes covered by the ICC. In the United States we have murder charges, and we also have whats called a justificable homicide, or in otherwords a justified murder (self defense or defense of others). There is nothing in the ICC that prohibits you from being charged for that crime if your countries own legal system, found guilty of those charges, making you innocent, and thenturn around and be arrested and sent to a different counry and tried for the crime you were just cleared of.

The term is double jeopardy, which the ICC strips.


Originally posted by aptness
This fact was explained on the Human Rights Watch ICC fact page, I previously linked—

Only the right to trial by jury is missing from the Rome Treaty because of the impracticality of impaneling a jury to hear a case against someone like Pol Pot or Slobodan Milosevic. But the United States has long accepted that its citizens (including U.S. service members) will not get jury trials when accused of crimes in countries like France or Japan, where juries are not used. The United States has signed extradition treaties with many countries that explicitly permit Americans to be tried without a jury.


Which is a fallacy. I pointed out all of the issues between the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution and the American Judicial system and listed them for all to see. I challenged you to counter those discrepancies and show us where in the ICC those protections exist, which you failed to do. The UCMJ does allow military personnel the right to trial bury jury, which is codified in the UCMJ and the US Constitution. Only the person charged can waive his right to trial by jury.

The reason for that is those protections DO NOT exist in the ICC at all. As I said earlier, coming close does not cut it in this area. Your argument is the ICC provides all of the same protections and then some, which is incorrect.

Please prove that everything I have listed in this post and my previous post is allowed under the ICC with your ICC references. Ive been through the ICC documents, and they dont exist.


Originally posted by aptness
Further demonstrating their ignorance of the Rome Statute and the ICC, the critics insist the ICC “cannot be used against a nation that is not a signatory to the treaty,” and this, they claim, is based on the ICC statute itself.


Nations who are signatories to the ICC - 144
Nations signatory to the Rome Statutes - 60

Hardly a unanimous consensus with regards to the ICC. I wonder why that is....

About 15 articles of the ICC state this. The ICC then contradicts itself by saying if one party is a member of the ICC, they have jurisdiction over any other country involved in that process, whether those countries are members or not. If the ICC is voluntary to join, then why would they need to force their legal structure onto countries who do not wish to be part of it? Especially an entity that is not part of the United Nations?

Forcing a treaty onto a country is also a violation of the UN charter, which tells coutnries they can run their internal affairs as they see fit and are not subject to treaties initated by other countries.

Or are we hoping people dont notice that little piece of information either?


Originally posted by aptness
Leaving aside the monumental lack of understanding and obvious incorrection that the ICC doesn’t investigate or prosecute nations but individual people, the Rome Statute, in Article 12 and Article 13 — namely 12(2) and 13(b), respectively — specify that the ICC has jurisdiction over crimes committed in the territory of non-signatories in case of a United Nations Security Council referral.


The ICC is limited in its jurisdiction to 4 key areas -
* - Genocide
* - Crimes against Humanity, Acts of Agression
* - War crimes
* - Crimes of Agression - Which even after 14 years of being in existance the ICC still does not define what a crime of agression is. Rest assured, the ICC has stated the moment they figure it out, they will let the world know. Until that time though, a war of agression will be decided by one of their judges, who is appointed by secret ballot.

No worries - there wont be any ability for misuse of the non existant defintion of war of agression. Those 4 areas are then broken down into offending classes (murder, trageting of civilians etc etc etc). The fact Aptness has pointed out the problem supports my argument -


Originally posted by aptness
namely 12(2) and 13(b), respectively — specify that the ICC has jurisdiction over crimes committed in the territory of non-signatories in case of a United Nations Security Council referral.


So now the ICC says, even though its not apart of the United Nations, but a seperate, independant body according to the ICCs website, that it does not matter if a nation is a signatory, they will just impose their jurisdiction anyways. Aside from the fact that this method is a violation of UN Charter, in addition to violating its own ICC rules by bypassing a nations own legal system, speaks volumes.

I always find it amusing when people complain about the US acting unilaterally, and butting our noses in where it does not belong, but have no problem being hypocritical in the name of universal jurisdiction or self imposed superior morals view point.


Originally posted by aptness
Artiucle 12 / article13


The term is called Universal Jurisdiction, and is a new concept in the realm of Intrnational law. The ICC Rome Statutes invokes this term, that to date only 60 countries are signatories to the Rome portion. The argument made in the Rome statutes says if a country is notified and fails to take action against, that any nation can invoke Universal Jurisdiction and intervene in that targeted country.

Universal jurisdiction is not a universally accepted legal term, and is not sanctioned by the United Nations, because it vilolates several key charters in that it interferes with the internal process of another, sovereign nation.


Originally posted by aptness
Comically, and demonstrative of their disingenuousness, in trying to perpetuate lies about the ICC and attempting to discredit the information I presented, this critic actually has the audacity to link to this page — supposedly supporting his claims and disproving mine — but where we can actually read, among other things, the following unequivocal statement—

When a matter is referred by the Security Council, the Court has jurisdiction regardless of whether the State concerned is a party to the ICC treaty.

This is how disingenuous the ICC critics and Bush doctrine supporters are. They make bogus claims and provide numerous links they don’t even bother to read and purposely ignore the information that debunk their claims.


The only bogus claim to date was made by you, in your first post, when you said the ICC not only contains ALL of the protections US citizens already have under the Constitution / US Legal System and then some more the ICC gives. This was false information provided on your part. I listed the discrepanices of what a US citizen has, and the fact those items listed are not a part of the ICC.

I provided that list so you could take them point by point to counter the claims, and to cite your ICC source that shows, without a doubt, that they are present.

You not only failed to do that, you failed to answer any of those items, and once again fall back to subterfuge and obfuscation in hopes people wont notice that you did not, and can not, answer the question.

Let me help -
There is no guarantee against double jeopardy - Violation of the 5th Amendment
It strips 5th amendment protectins against the Military - Violation of the 5th Amendment / UCMJ
There is no guarantee to face your accuser - Violates confrontation clause of the 6th amendment
There is no system for bail - Violation of the 8th Amendment
There is no right to trial by jury of your peers - Violation of 6th Amendment
There is no guarantee of a public trial - Violates 6th Amendment

There is no gurantee of priveladged communications between defendant / counsel - Violates 6th Amendment
The timeline established by the ICC for criminal prosecution violates the speedy trial defintion set forth by US law - Violates the 6th amendment.

There is no standard of impartiality set for judges - Violates 6th Amendment
There is no process for the recusal / forced removal of juges who exhibit prejudice while presiding - Violates 6th amendment.
There is no Compulsory process for witnesses in place - Violates the 6th Amendment
While it states presumed innocent until prven guilty, the established rules for proceedings of the ICC force the accused to prove his innocents instead of the Prosectuor - Violates Due Process / 5th Amendment

It fails to recognize good faith standard - Case Law established by SCOTUS when actions are taken by one party who is acting on information from a second party beleived to be knowledgable about the info.

It fails to adhere to a strict guidlene regarding rules of evidence - Violates 4th / 6th amendment
It does not allow a challenge to evidence collected - Violates 4th / 6th amendment
It does not allow for a motion of discovery - Violates 4th / 6th amendment
It does not allow for pre trial conference for fact comparison - Violates Due Process

It does not allow for evidence illegally obtained from being prohibited in its use - Violates 4th / 6th amendment as well as Fruit of the Poisonous tree decision by SCOTUS

It does not provide for protections against self incrimination - Violates 5th Amendment
It does not prohibit the forced testimony of a charged defendant - Violates the 5th Amendment
It does not allow a defendant to take the 5th amendment - Violates 5th Amendment
It does not prohibit the use of hearsay evidence - Violates SCOTUS case law and due process
It does not prohibit a seizure of a suspect or personal belongings - Violates 4th amendment
It does not allow for bail, a violation of the 8th amendment
It assumes auhtority over citizens where none is granted to it by non signatory nations. - Violation of Constitution
It does not use the standard of Probable Cause to issue an arrest or search warrant - Violates 4th amendment
It does not take into account American citizens hold dual citizenship (State / Federal) - Violates the 9th amendment
The ICC procedures / guarantees that are not already listed in the US Constitution cannot be granted by treaty - violates 10th amendment.
It does not allow for the redress of grievances by the accused against an accusing government
It does not provide 2nd amendment protections with regards to the illegal possession / use of weapons under ICC definitions.
It does removes the authority of Congress from creating/removing/modifiying UCMJ - Violates Constitution
The lack of acknowledgment of Case law - violates Equal protection clause

The entire ICC and Rome Statutes, written as they are now, violate the 11th amendment
The entire ICC and Rome Statutes, written as they are now, violate the 14th amendment

* - Executive Pardons / acts of clemency to convicted persons based on new information.
* - Executive Pardons / acts of clemency to convicted person based on changes in the law (constitutionally / case law rulings).
* - No guarantee of a retrial if new evidence arises that proves a person innosence.
* - No redress of grievances for those who are wrongly convicted
* - No mechanism in place for mistakes made by the court
* - No ability to request a re-hearing in front of the court with new evidence

and by the way, it also strips diplomatic immunity for Diplomats since it makes no distinction or expemtions to political status.

Gee, thats not a huge problem is it?


Originally posted by aptness
The critics, continuing their spectacular demonstration of ignorance, claim things like “there is no vote on the Rome Statute,” and that I couldn’t even get the numbers right, in order to confuse people and dismiss the information I presented. Even a simple wikipedia consultation would confirm the information I posted—

Following years of negotiations aimed at establishing a permanent international tribunal to prosecute individuals who commit genocide and other serious international crimes, the United Nations General Assembly convened a five-week diplomatic conference in Rome in June 1998 "to finalize and adopt a convention on the establishment of an international criminal court". On 17 July 1998, the Rome Statute was adopted by a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining.


The ICC is a treaty nations must sign onto, and then have ratified by their government. A vote does not make it legally binding. While you continue to use the date of 1998, the offical date of its inception is 2002, because this is the date when they reached the minimum number of nations who ratified the treaty to make it offical - 120.


Originally posted by aptness
Another bogus claim made was that I was wrong about my statement that “only two cases, in the history of the Court, have been referred by the Security Council” I made in my previous post. Again, a simple wikipedia consultation would confirm these facts—

To date, the Court has opened investigations into six situations, all of them in Africa: Northern Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, Darfur (Sudan), the Republic of Kenya and Libya. Of these six, three were referred to the Court by the states parties (Uganda, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Central African Republic), two were referred by the United Nations Security Council (Darfur and Libya) and only one was begun proprio motu by the Prosecutor (Kenya).


Do some more research - From the ICC owns page -
ICC Cases and pending matters

* - Uganda
* - Congo
* - Sudan
* - Central African Republic
* - Kenya
* - Libya

None of which are signatories to the ICC. With the exception of 3 of these countries, who referred internal matters to the ICC (which again reinforces the fact that the ICC has no legal jurisdiction incountries who are not signatories to the treaty, as they can only investigate if requested).

The issues in Kenya drives home the point of the otther non discussed issue of the ICC.

The term is called - proprio motu - Which allows a prosecutor of the ICC to initiate and investigation into any of their jurisdictional arean on their own authority. There is no ability to challenge any issues that might arise, namely conflict of intrest, by the prosecutor. There is no system in place to protect against prosecutorial misconduct.

There is a reason the Law Enforcement in the United States is used to investigate crimes. Firstly, its established under the executive branch of the various Federal, State and Local Government constitutions. Secondly, Law Enforcement can be called as a witness and can be cross examined by both sides, and we can be challenged in our expertise, training, history etc.

I would like to see you attempt to call an ICC prosecuting attrorny, who is responsible for the investigation, to the stand to question their manner in which they did their investigation, their qualifications to interpret evidence when they are not court estbalished experts.

What if the Prosecutor decides to exercise their authority, and open up an investigation into say Cuba. The Prosecutor does their investigation, and brings charges against say Castro. During the trial its discovered that the Prosecutors parents were killed by Castro when he took over.

There is absolutely no remedy to challenge the impartialty of the Prosecutor. The simple fact the Prosecutor failed to even disclose that connection can lend evidence to the fact the prosecution itself is not only personal, but politically motivated.


Originally posted by aptness
The ICC critics and Bush doctrine supporters have no shame, and will gleefully spread lies and try to confuse people, contrary to the spirit of AboveTopSecret. I hope this post has been elucidative of their tactics.


Your continued use of the term Bush supporters is again an obfuscation technique, the same technique Assange and his lawyer tried to use by invoking Gitmo, treason and the Death Penalty, in hopes to play off the emotions of the people and hope they watch the right hand while you manipulate the left hand.

As a side note, the concession you made about the Right to trial by jury not being allowed under the ICC, ensures that any ICC agreement and ratification by the US Government, would not only be challenged in US Supreme Court, the Supreme Court would rule the ICC as being unconstitutional because it removes a guarantee from the constitution itself.

Please take the list I provided above and counter each point with the corresponding ICC article reference. You are the one who made the claim the ICC is better and affords more protection than our own Constitution, please prove it.


Originally posted by aptness
I will gladly respond to the serious and intelligent members who wish to further debate the facts.


This is the same tactic you used in the other threads. People raise valid arguments and concerns, and when the facts go against your argument, you resort to personal attacks, you ignore the facts and fall back on your circular argument in hopes of confusing people so they dont ask questions that you cant answer. It would of been easier for you to just quote your last post, and use it as your answer here, since its bascially what you did anyways.

I responded to your post, and raised valid concerns, and even provided you with a list of protections the ICC does not contain, and asked you to counter the list with ICC sources. This is now the second request for you to do that. Unless you are going to just ignore anyone who asks a question where the answer does not support your argument. I look forward to your reponse to the list and your supporting ICC references showing it is indeed in place. Failure to answer just reinforces my point that your argument for the ICC is flawed, that the ICC does not do what you claim it does, and you are unwilling to acknowledge that.

Thank you
edit on 14-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
The focus of the accusations have now moved to the ICC, even though I had made no mention of it, hadn’t been brought up in this discussion up until now, by this very same member who accused me of making “the exact same debate” I had with him on a different thread.

The accusations that register as legible can be easily dissipated if one simply reads the ICC statute (Rome Statute), but I suspect many, if not all, of the accusations here made by this member are talking points and accusations made by someone else that, without actually having checked the statute in question, he perpetuates.

The alternative would be to conclude that this person is incapable of reading a legal document in plain english.

Of the most absurd accusations are the ones that the “death penalty” for someone found guilty of a crime (“smuggle drugs into China and gets caught, where the penalty for that is death”), deporting people illegally in a country [“the immigration laws of the United States would violate that section, since we target a group (illegal immigrants) who are part of the civilian population”], or even “simply handcuffing a person behind their back,” would make someone liable for prosecution by the ICC.

Leaving aside the, worrying, lack of understanding that people, whether in the eyes of the ICC or some other court of law, couldn’t be criminally liable for lawful acts, like punishing, according to the law, someone found guilty of a crime, or deporting illegal immigrants, the ICC statute nevertheless plainly addresses these concerns.

For example, “‘deportation or forcible transfer of population’ means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law.” Art. 7(2)(d) Illegal immigrants aren’t “lawfully present” in the United States, that’s actually why they are illegal immigrants. This is how absurd these accusations are.

The crimes in the jurisdiction of the Court — genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, crime of aggression — are all defined and put into context. The statute notes the ICC is “limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a wholeArt. 5(1), not with a police officer in Tulsa lawfully cuffing a suspect.

The statute qualifies acts defined as genocide with “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious groupArt. 6, and lists some of those acts like “killing members of the group,” or “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.”

Only a person ignorant of the statute, or purposely distorting the meaning of genocide, would believe these aren’t directed and intended to apply to deplorable crimes of the same nature as those that occurred in Rwanda in 1994, and would actually apply to lawful acts done pursuant to immigration laws of a country.

The statute also qualifies the acts defined as crimes against humanity with “any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attackArt. 7, and, with that qualifier in place, lists acts like ‘murder’ or ‘extermination.’

Only a person ignorant of the statute, or purposely distorting the meaning of crimes against humanity, would believe these would apply to someone, pursuant to a trial and decision by a court of law, carrying out a death sentence.

The accusations regarding the protections, or lack thereof, of the ICC statute are just as absurd. Like the one where it is argued that “in the United States we ... have whats called a justificable homicide, or in otherwords a justified murder (self defense or defense of others),” and the implication being that the ICC doesn’t consider this fact.

Forgetting for a moment that the Court is concerned with “the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole,” and not with common crimes of lesser gravity in the overall scope of the ICC, and also ignoring that the crime of murder would only come under the jurisdiction of the Court “when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attackArt. 7(1), the statute nonetheless, and contrary to what is claimed here by this ATS member, considers the circumstances of self-defense by saying “in addition to other grounds for excluding criminal responsibility provided for in this Statute, a person shall not be criminally responsible if, at the time of that person's conduct: ... the person acts reasonably to defend himself or herself or another personArt. 31(1)(c).

Another of such absurd accusations is that the “ICC strips,” it is claimed, “double jeopardy.” Article 20 of the Rome Statute couldn’t be clearer: “No person shall be tried by another court for a crime ... for which that person has already been convicted or acquitted by the [ICC]” Art. 20(2), and, “No person who has been tried by another court for conduct ... shall be tried by the [ICC] with respect to the same conduct” Art. 20(3).

I don’t know if this person is simply ignorant of the actual statute, or is deliberately spreading lies, but in any case I would be wasting my time, ever more so, if I addressed all, many of which borderline incoherent, accusations, when a simple reading of the ICC statute is sufficient to see through them.

I also wonder why he decided to repost his, repetitive and unfounded, criticisms of the ICC when it wasn’t part of the discussion.

Perhaps it has to do with the fact that I was having a discussion with another member and torture was mentioned, and knowing that such actions would fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC, he feels, in defense of torture — he acknowledges was used (“torture - specifically waterboarding”) and supports (“I wont discount that we have obtained good info from torture”) — the need to muddy the waters, so more people don’t realize the implications of the policies the Bush administration implemented, or perhaps just to enforce his own delusion that everything was legal.

Maybe other lawyers here haven’t bothered to participate because, unlike me, they know better than keep insisting on a discussion with someone whose arguments, when readable, are cringeworthy to someone having a basic understanding of the law.

If the purpose was to find the limit of how much nonsense I could read, fellow ATS member, proceed uncontestedly with your advocacy of torture and American exceptionalism and isolationism.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




Out of curisoity, where did you get executeing gitmo detainees from? Was that between you and the other poster, or are you saying we have executed detainees?


I was replying to this from SFGirl's post:



if we were to truly to follow the Rules of War - there would be no Gitmo, because it is perfectly legal under the Geneva Convention to execute them on sight.


... which I thought was both untrue and offensive.

I was not saying that any Gitmo inmates (or other "rendered" persons) were executed.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


I posted the ICC information because its relevant to what was being discussed. And once again I will point out that you still have failed to make your counter argument. You have consistently ignored posts that contained facts and cited sources.

As I said in other threads, ignoring the information specifically because it does not support your argument, does not make your argument valid. All of this has gone through the courts, has been ruled on and has legislation passed that passed constitutional muster.

The examples I used, that you are attempting to distort is my point. The treaties created are vague and open to broad interpretation, which is the reason I used those examples. Its not out of the realm of possibility for these areas to be misued in a politically motivated endeavor, which conincidentally enough you are doing.

While you are at it, are you ever going to get around to presenting your case that is supported by facts, and not what you think it should be?

But by all means, keep making your circular arguments while ignoring facts.
edit on 16-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


Gotcha.. my bad.. cross wired on my part.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I believe this to be a hoax for the following reasons

It gives a politician the right to murder you, your family, friends....to do it right in front of your, in any fashion heshe designates and there is nothing you can do about it.



The guy you vote against because he has no honor, no morality, gets elected. He round up a bunch of his cronies and secret service agents and go hunting humans. It would be legal, in place of shooting a round of golf, he could round up political opposition and shoot them.


If someone actually empowered the office of POTUS with this conceit, he would be assassinated the first time he availed himself of this authority, as would every President that takes the office.


In many ways America is a feudal socieity, at least in the South. You come after me and mine than you know i'm coming after you and yours. If an American President starts assassinating Americans then he becomes a domestic terrorist and forfeits the Office.


I would not threaten the President, it is a difficult job. I would not want it and i admire those with the talent to keep things together and flowing safely to the future. It is a job you are bred for, if not, the World suffers. The President is the Commander of the most powerful military ever. He does not need a license to kill.
Legislation cannot legalize MURDER, that is a bridge too far.
edit on 063131p://pm3159 by debris765nju because: spelling
edit on 073131p://pm3104 by debris765nju because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by debris765nju
 


Intresting view... Question for you then if you dont mind..

If someone were to break into your house and go after your wfie and kids, would you use deadly force to defend them?



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Absolutely. Considering the state of affairs one must tread carefully and choose their words accordingly. If your government becomes corrupt no one is safe.

There are many correlations between what is happening in America today and what occured in Nazi Germany. It is like that same demented mindset has once again arisen and is continuing down that same path to destruction.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by debris765nju
 


The reason I asked that question was because of your statement hat the Government cannot legalize murder. Defending yourself and your family by ending an intruders life in your house will not go down on the books as defense.

The cause of death will be ruled as a homicide - justified.
When a person commits a capital offense and is sentenced to death by the court, when the execution is carried out the cause of death goes down as homicide.

While I can understand how the actions of the US government could be compared to that of Nazi Germany, the fact is just about every single country on this planet can be compared to them. Unlike the Nazis, the US government has not gone on a blitz to blame anyone who is Muslim of being a terrorist and that they are the reason for our tough economic times.

You also would not find the Nazi regime tolerating prisoners to the extent of giving them legal representation and allowing them use of the judicial system. Nor would you find a judge during the Nazi regime who would rule policies or actions as illegal, as the US legal system did with Gitmo and access to legal councel etc.

The hardest conept people have with the treaties on the international stage is how they are applied to the country who signs it. In addition to the US, Great Britain and a few other nations, who are also signatories to the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statutes, have modified those treaties using Domestic Law. This is not just something the US is doing just because, again contrary to popular belief.

I guess where my irritation comes in is where people will expend great amounts of time and efforts formulating arguments in an effort to try to catch the US in a situation that can be exploited, while at the same time completely ignoring the fact that the people we are fighting arent playing by any rules period.

While I agree the US and her actions should be held to a higher standard, that is not always going to be possible, and could do more harm than good in certain situations.

The Constitution is there for a reason, and agood one at that. However, its not a suicide pact either..



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I am talking about a specific law that allows the POTUS to legally authorize the murder of American citizens without benefit of the rules of law. If you missed it in my last post, i am against it as it violates the Constitution and the rights guaranteed therein.

My comparison of what is occuring in the U.S., the erosion of civil rights of the citizens, the viiolation of the Constitution, and corruption of the Judicial systems that are supposed to safeguard those rights..

America will nor be defeated by foreign aggressors nor from the inside by corrupt or incompetent politicians. There are millions of Veterans that have done their duty an served in the military of our Country. OUR Country. Politicians, Lawyers and Corporations might think they have America on the ropes but they are living in a fools paradise.

I own a piece of America, a piece of it's history, a piece of it's land and a piece of it's social programs. It has been paid for with a large portion of my income, my life, my blood and my support. We are not fooled by your Smoke and Mirrors. We do not share in your cowardice. We do not share in the knowledge you hide from those who have paid for it. We do not share in your overweaning pride, We do not think you are as great as you think you are.

It is time the Three branches of our Government should take a look at their respective track records. The are now and have been deplorable. You have been derelict in your duty and to you Responsibilities. You cannot serve two masters, you are taking pay for governing..........then you are taking money from special interests. That is just wrong on so many levels.





top topics
 
252
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join